Explaining the Joke

Many of you have probably seen this. It was created by the blogger D. B. Echo, who posted it online on August 15 last year. It has since gone viral. Paul Krugman himself posted it to his New York Times blog on September 18. I saw it a little while later when Warren Craghead added it to his Facebook page. Nearly everyone I know thinks it’s the most laugh-out-loud funny thing they’ve seen in a good while. I believe it might be worth discussing why.

For those not familiar with Paul Krugman, he’s a Princeton economics professor who received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008. He is also one of the most prominent journalists in the United States. Since 1999, the New York Times has published a biweekly column by him, which was joined a few years ago by a frequently updated blog. Krugman is also a mainstay of news-discussion programs on television. He most frequently appears on ABC’s This Week.

Krugman’s prominence as a journalist comes from his being one of the few genuinely contrarian voices in the U.S. establishment media. He’s a knowledgeable principle-before-party liberal, and he’s not afraid to call anyone out. Democrats, Republicans, his peers in the press and the economics profession—none are exempt from his incisive and occasionally polemical critiques. Krugman was George W. Bush’s most consistently outspoken critic during his presidency. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, it often seemed Krugman was the only figure giving a public voice to those who objected to the administration’s conduct. He has also proved a thorn in the side of Barack Obama. Krugman has frequently criticized the inadequacy of Obama’s economic policies and legislative strategies. A good deal of his writing for the Times these days is concerned with puncturing right-wing economic arguments and disparaging the international trend towards austerity policy. His views are so much at odds with others in the U. S. media and political establishment that he may be the closest thing we have to a latter-day Cassandra. The only consolation is that he speaks for the multitudes that have found themselves marginalized by—if not outright victims of—the political discourse in both the U. S. and abroad.

The picture above isn’t of Krugman, of course. It’s of George Clooney, in what is probably the most famous still from the 2005 film Syriana, which Clooney starred in and helped produce. (He won an Oscar for his performance.) It’s probably Clooney’s least glamorous role. To play it, he gained 35 pounds, grew a full beard, and shaved his hairline. The character is a middle-aged CIA operative in the Middle East who grows increasingly disgusted with the shortsightedness, double-dealing, and overreaching tendencies of his superiors. The moment depicted is when he reaches his breaking point and turns on the agency. One wouldn’t normally think of Clooney and Paul Krugman as lookalikes, but the beard, paunch, and salt-and-pepper hair make them all but indistinguishable from a distance.

Humor is rooted in dissonance, and a good deal of what makes D. B. Echo’s effort funny is the contrast between the Clooney character’s affect and Krugman’s normal public demeanor. Krugman’s detractors often characterize his writing as “shrill,” but he’s a polite and genial fellow in his public appearances. No matter how pointed his arguments with George Will (his usual TV foil) and others get, he never raises his voice or acts rudely. He’s by no means passive, but he’s hardly intimidating, either. One looks at the Clooney character’s ticked-off, don’t-mess-with-me attitude, and one can’t help but think that’s what’s simmering underneath Krugman’s calm exterior. The burning car is the icing on the cake. It’s a sensational trope for a mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore moment. The frustrations of arguing in vain are recast as violent, action-adventure melodrama.

What pushes this piece beyond funny and makes it outright hilarious, at least for some of us, is that Krugman has become an icon of liberal politics in this country. He’s become an identification figure—a synecdoche, if you will—of liberals in the contemporary U.S. If one considers oneself liberal—or at least to the left of the establishment political discourse over the last decade or so—one likely sees Krugman as one’s voice in the debate, one’s champion in the arena. One feels the frustration of seeing one’s objections to the military actions and oligarchic economic policies borne out by what has followed, and one imagines on some level (with justification) that Krugman shares these views. One gets tired of the talk—the efforts “to reason with you people”—and one imagines oneself saying the hell with it in a spectacularly defiant moment. The identification with Krugman that one brings to the image becomes one’s identification with the scenario it shows. It’s quite cathartic, but the absurdity of imagining Krugman playing out that large-than-life situation is compounded by the absurdity of seeing one playing it out oneself. Like much great humor, the piece invites the viewer to laugh at both what it depicts and oneself as well.

The D. B. Echo piece is text and imagery working together, and I can’t help but think of how its sophistication relates to comics. It does something one rarely sees from comics creators: the words decontextualize an image and recontextualize it in new terms. D. B. Echo treats the image poetically; he uses the text to transform the visual scenario into an allegory of an unrelated situation. Most comics treat the image as an end in itself; they don’t use it as a signifier that can be exploited for multiple meanings. What you see is what you get; everything is literal, and nothing is ambiguous. The D. B. Echo piece makes me wonder if that’s a distinction between comics that are mediocre and comics that offer more. Great comics should do what this piece does: transform the image to create a resonance that is both wide and deep.

However, all this pedantry aside, D. B. Echo has given us something that’s brilliantly funny. I wanted to share it with those who haven’t seen it.

41 Comments

I used to read Krugman’s column regularly back in 2006 or 2007, and since I am of the mind that any true journalist should be objective, the fierce one-sidedness of his viewpoint soon began rubbing me the wrong way. Curious, one weekend I sat down and went through all of his archived columns, and it quickly became apparent that from the very beginning, he never wrote even one column praising a Republican — unless it happened to be a Republican who jumped ship.

With such obvious partisanship, two things became clear: Nothing Krugman wrote would ever be objective, and because of that, Krugman was not, nor ever would be, a true journalist.

Like Limbaugh, I classify Krugman as an interesting opinionist, and, as such I consider everything he writes suspect until proven otherwise.

Russ, objectively, Krugman’s ideological beliefs are going to lead him to being more critical of Republicans than Democrats. The question of objectivity is when Democrats contradict his beliefs, or Republicans support them, is he critical of them? Or does he — like a talk radio Republican ideologue — mouth over the differences?

He’s not a journalist though; he’s a columnist, right? He’s not reporting; he’s being paid for analysis.

I don’t object to Russ Limbaugh because he fails to be objective. I object to him because his opinions are poisonous and he’s a liar (which is different than not merely being objective.) On the other hand, I like Ross Douthat okay; he’s not objective either, and I don’t agree with him, but he’s got an interesting perspective.

The penultimate graf, where RSM laments the unsophisticated visual component of many comix. A laurel and hearty handshake to him!

Perhaps too many comix are drawn by people who are basically verbal? In addition, these verbal artists often have no tradition to draw upon to train their visual muscles. Where will they see such techniques used in contemporary media?

Thinking in pictures is really conceptual illustration and the current fad in illos is certainly not conceptual, despite what some practitioners might think.

Perhaps what I’m really saying is that comix has lost its traditional roots in illustration and perhaps it doesn’t matter, since illustration has lost its own past anyway.

Krugman’s a journalist; he’s just not a reporter. Ross Douthat is a journalist, too. Objectivity is a goal of reporting; the point is to preclude value judgments in order to portray as full a picture as possible of what’s being reported on. The objectivity standard doesn’t apply to journalists in general. The standard of journalism is to be as honest as possible. Honesty and value judgments aren’t opposed.

Krugman isn’t partisan. He wouldn’t be at consistent odds with the Obama Administration if he was. His concern is policy. What GOP policies do you feel he’s discussed unfairly, Russ?

Non-partisan doesn’t necessarily mean centrist, by the way. It means party identification is beside the point. A person who says both sides are wrong (as Krugman often does) is at least as much a non-partisan as someone who says both sides have good and bad ideas.

Thanks for mentioning your interpretation, Charles. The Echo piece certainly supports it. And that highlights another way of saying to what good comics should be: work that’s complex enough to support multiple interpretations.

Charles — While I admit Krugman has a much better resume than Limbaugh, I really can’t say that Krugman’s partisan viewpoint is somehow more honest than Limbaugh’s. One would think a Princeton professor’s viewpoint would be, but, from what I’ve seen of Krugman’s columns, it isn’t.

I don’t think the problem is that comics artists are too verbal. I believe their thinking is too simplistic and unsophisticated. They need to include ambiguity in their creative arsenals. If anything, the problem may be that they are not well-read enough. It’s a rare comic that even rises to the level of The Turn of the Screw.

RSM wrote: “Krugman isn’t partisan. He wouldn’t be at consistent odds with the Obama Administration if he was. His concern is policy. What GOP policies do you feel he’s discussed unfairly, Russ?”

Krugman is not a partisan Democrat, he’s a partisan uber-liberal. Obviously, there’s a big difference. Similarly, Limbaugh is not a partisan Republican, he’s a partisan uber-conservative.

As far as specific GOP-bashing Krugman columns go, please don’t make me go back and re-read them all again. That’s cruel and unusual punishment. And, frankly, I just don’t have the time these days to do it all over again anyway. All I can say is that Krugman has not said or written anything I’ve heard or seen since I did my research that makes me think his bias has changed.

Per the use of the word partisan: not to bust out the dictionary, but a person can be a partisan to a cause, not just a party. So I think Russ is correct in that Krugman is fairly described as a “partisan” of the left.

But I don’t really see why that’s a bad thing, or why his writing is suspect versus the “objective” writing of mainstream journalists. Firstly, I think objectivity in journalism is mostly a crock, used to justify an unthinking acceptance of the status quo, and treating mainstream opinion as if it’s fact.

Second, I actually prefer writers who put their biases (or ideology, if you prefer) up front rather than writers who pretend to be unbiased (or are too stupid to be aware of their own biases). I prefer Krugman, Glenn Greenwald, Douthat, and even Limbaugh to the brainless ninnies on Fox or CNN.

Wow! Thank you! I’m very flattered by this treatment of my little funny, which came to me in an eyeblink one day as I was reading Paul Krugman’s blog and sensing his frustration with…well, everyone, on every side, who doesn’t get what he’s trying to say – or worse, DOES get it, but lacks the courage or political will to put it into action. That, and the sheer number of people who mistake him for Thomas Friedman, and vice versa. I am amazed that some days his forehead isn’t purplish-black from banging it on his desk.

I like to hear various sides of any argument, so I try and watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the old networks (ABC, CBS and NBC). But when a person gets too over the top (i.e. too partisan), I tend to tune them out. For example, I watch Cooper and Blitzer on CNN; O’Reilly, Stossel and Van Susteren on Fox; Williams and Holt on NBC; Wallace and Scarborough on MSNBC; and Sawyer on ABC. I used to like Olbermann until he started losing his mind about six years ago, and I can take low doses of Maddow and Hannity.

The rest of the field is a crap shoot, in my opinion, with even some of the biggest names being total boneheads.

To Russ’s point: journalists aren’t supposed to be objective in the sense of never taking a side on an issue. They’re supposed to be objective in the sense of ferreting out the truth. The recent Pressthink critique vis-a-vis NPR is an excellent case in point.

Some political disagreements are actually just differences of priorities, which cannot be reduced to right or wrong answers — only best possible decisions. We live in a world where politcians try to elide the difference in both directions — elevating political choices into matters of absolute right and wrong while reducing factual analysis into something that can be endlessly manipulated to reflect the most self-beneficial political choice.

I also want to second RSM’s response to Mahendra. Trust me, there’s really no evidence that most cartoonists are primarily verbal. :)

What makes this cartoon work is not that it’s visual as opposed to verbal (actually, much of what makes it so laugh-out-loud funny is in the caption), or even more visual than verbal or even just more effectively visual. The visual element is a simple reference — the recontextualization of that reference happens in the text. What makes it work that it is abstract rather than concrete, or more precisely associative instead of representative. The de- and re-contextualization RSM mentions depends on identifying abstract relationships between two concepts and finding a way (here, the caption) to highlight that abstract relationship in a way that changes the experience of each concept for the reader.

Allusions, metaphors, and conceits (et al.) work exactly this way in verbal contexts. This one is a brief gag, but it works the same way as a more sophisticated conceit, and could form the foundation for something more extended. The dissonance is why it’s funny — the recontextualization is why it’s smart.

Reading conceptually challenging prose is probably the easiest way to learn to make these kinds of recontextualizations, although it can be learned from other contexts. It’s just very on-the-surface of prose, which is inherently abstract.

That said, I agree with Mahendra that old-school illustrators and cartoonists were better at it. However, from my understanding, many of them were also much less contemptuous of writers and writing than are cartoonists today. For example, the book “Saul Steinberg Illuminations” (which I believe is the exhibition catalog for a Pierpont Morgan Library show?) contains the following observation: “Steinberg’s New Yorker friends tended to be writers…[which] probably helped revise his self-image from cartoonist to ‘writer who draws’. The difference was not merely a matter of status but of audience, or, more precisely, of attention span: a writer doesn’t plant gags to gratify a page flipper but starts up and sustains the mental machinery of readers.”

In corporate collaborative comics, oblique, parallel or otherwise conceptual approaches to how images relate to the text are actively discouraged—editors demand storytelling that makes for clear reading. In the alt/lit area one can control these things and do what one wants, but it is easier said than done to be able to both write and draw well, let alone brilliantly.

That corporate comics would take that position doesn’t surprise me at all. I absolutely agree with you, too, that it’s hard to write and draw well/brilliantly. Our education system certainly doesn’t value them equally and doesn’t value either particularly enough. But nonetheless, there’s no real reason for alt/art comics to have to be single-handed auteurist projects, or for weakness in an area to translate into contempt for it.

With regards to this article I think there is one extra thing to consider. I think it would be hard for a cartoonist of any caliber to do this type of combo simply because this is more of a “found art” -esque piece. To me, part of what’s funny about it is that I already know who the person in the still REALLY is and what movie it’s from (although for a split second I was thinking “Michael Clayton”). Half the joke is that it’s saying “hey doesn’t that look like Krugman?”

Maybe if cartoonists swapped pictures and finished them or something it would be easier to do this but it’s kind of hard to synthesize this kind of situation since the picture wasn’t initially intended to have that caption.

However, a cartoonist aspiring to convey a message in a similar way would be a great thing to behold!

I used to read Krugman’s column regularly back in 2006 or 2007, and since I am of the mind that any true journalist should be objective…
——————-

Vot means, this “objective”? Like merely reporting events or unquestioningly repeating what is spouted by whichever side, without “taking sides” by saying it was a criminal action to do this, or that a “spokesperson” is spewing a barrage of lies?

adjective
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
———————

———————
R. Maheras says:

…the fierce one-sidedness of his viewpoint soon began rubbing me the wrong way. Curious, one weekend I sat down and went through all of his archived columns, and it quickly became apparent that from the very beginning, he never wrote even one column praising a Republican — unless it happened to be a Republican who jumped ship.

With such obvious partisanship, two things became clear: Nothing Krugman wrote would ever be objective, and because of that, Krugman was not, nor ever would be, a true journalist.

Like Limbaugh, I classify Krugman as an interesting opinionist, and, as such I consider everything he writes suspect until proven otherwise.
——————-

The WW II-era coverage of that conflict from, say, “The New York Times” and “Der Stürmer” surely displayed “obvious partisanship” on both sides, one pro-Allies, the other pro-Axis.

Yet — as with the specious “Krugman is an ‘opinionist,’ just like Limbaugh” argument — does it thus mean that both can be tarred with the same brush? That because the NYT probably never featured “even one column praising a Nazi,” therefore it displayed “obvious partisanship”; meaning that nothing printed there “would ever be objective, and because of that…not, nor ever would [be] true journalism”?

(“This is the cover to the most infamous issue of Der Stürmer, the 1934 issue accusing Jews of practicing ritual murder to secure the blood of Christians to use in Jewish religious rituals. The headline reads: Jewish Murder Plan against Gentile Humanity Revealed…” More at http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm )

Both display political positions; but if you can’t tell which one of the two is crammed to the gills with lies, distortions, demagoguery, making much of the mote in another’s eye while ignoring the beam in their own…

Mike — Why is it that every time I liken conservative partisans to liberal partisans, you almost always bring up the WW II “Nazis vs. Allies” comparison?

Do you really believe partisan conservatives are at the same level as WW II Nazis?

As far as your Limbaugh/Krugman “class warfare” opinion examples are concerned, neither came off as over the top. Both were sincere; both made valid, salient points; yet both slanted towards the opinionist’s political viewpoint.

Which leads me to your comment, “Both display political positions; but if you can’t tell which one of the two is crammed to the gills with lies, distortions, demagoguery, making much of the mote in another’s eye while ignoring the beam in their own…”

It nothing more than an exaggeration in the same vein as “Nazis vs. Allies” exaggeration. For, while Limbaugh (like Krugman) can certainly be over-the-top sometimes, I don’t think he was in this particular example.

To me the major difference between those pieces was that the Krugman piece referenced a source that people could use as a starting point to evaluate his assertions (the CBO report) whereas the Limbaugh just made the assertions. I wouldn’t even know where to begin to fact-check it.

Caro — That’s true, but I wonder if that has more to do with the medium used to air the opinion than anything else. Obviously, if one is driving around listening to Limbaugh’s opinions on the radio, they’re not going to remember the specific sources afterwards anyway.

Still, there’s no denying that, as a scholar, Krugman’s approach may be more likely to involve information citations than Limbaugh.

Maybe in the sense that Limbaugh is just so accustomed to working in radio that it just isn’t part of the way he writes, but in this age where broadcasts almost always make it onto the internet either as transcripts or podcasts, I think it’s something we can reasonably expect. I just on principle discount anything anybody says unless it’s contains enough source info for me to fact check it.

I unapproved your latest comment. I don’t want “Nazis were liberals” arguments quoted in my threads under any circumstances. If nothing else, it perpetuates that sewage in search engines. I know you were quoting in opposition, but please keep the references restricted to the links with that type of crap. If you’d like the text of your comment to re-post another version of your argument, let me know and I’ll email it to you.

Mike — Perhaps you should attempt to parse Krugman’s statements in the same manner you do Limbaugh’s. It might be enlightening.

If I were running the show, I wouldn’t be be pro any special interest group. I’d be pro what I thought was best for the long- and short-term health of the country — within the established guidelines of the Constitution, of course. These days, however, such an attitude would be the kiss of death for any politician.

Russ – I’d be willing to bet that every politician believes they’re working for the long term health of the country. People disagree as to what qualifies as “healthy” and how best to get there.

And yes, ignoring special interests would be the kiss of death, but mostly because campaigns are incredibly expensive and the only way to afford to run is to sell your soul to as many donors as possible.

…If I were running the show… I’d be pro what I thought was best for the long- and short-term health of the country — within the established guidelines of the Constitution, of course. These days, however, such an attitude would be the kiss of death for any politician.
——————-

…”These days”? Has there ever been a time in human history when every single group didn’t put their own short-term gain above what was better for the entire society? (Not that they’d ever think of it that way, of course…)

——————–
Richard Cook says:

Russ – I’d be willing to bet that every politician believes they’re working for the long term health of the country. People disagree as to what qualifies as “healthy” and how best to get there…
——————–

They also disagree on what a “healthy country” looks like! In the case of the GOP, it’s been obvious for decades that the Party’s wet dream is to turn the U.S. into a South American “banana republic”; with a very few mega-wealthy lording it over the impoverished rabble.

And then there’s the idiocy of voters to contend with. I recall an H.L. Mencken piece (in the 20’s or 30’s) when he followed a office seeker around in his campaign. The politico made speeches about how tough times demanded sacrifices; hit his audiences with nitty-gritty, harsh realities.

The would-be voters were not happy at all to hear this kind of talk! After thinking things over, the campaigner made a 180-degree turn in his rhetoric. After one such speech, which was heartily cheered, Mencken told the politician words to the effect of “you know that nobody could possibly keep those promises!”

But, the audience loved it…

————————
…ignoring special interests would be the kiss of death, but mostly because campaigns are incredibly expensive and the only way to afford to run is to sell your soul to as many donors as possible.
————————

And the deliberate reason why campaigns are kept expensive is to lock out those who aren’t rich, or are unwilling to sell out…

Some of youse need to take a vacation from TV and meditate on the difference between an entertainer and a real person. Rush and Sarah and Olberman and Coulter and everyone you argue about here is an entertainer. Except Krugman, who is an economist. Economists, philosophers, scientists . . . there are all kinds of people out there who occasionally WRITE for journals and even newspapers, but who are not cutout TV props with cutout opinions. Don’t take my word for it. Ask Jon Stewart.

Krugman actually sounds tired of trying to reason with us in yesterday’s piece. Especially the bit about being “struck by the extent to which Republican-leaning economists — who have to know better — have been willing to lend their credibility to the party’s official delusions.”

Since I gave him credit for citing sources earlier, I should point out that he fails to give us enough info to know which economists he’s referring to in this one. There are references in the EPI paper he links to, but I can’t tell without digging into the body of the paper if they’re even likely to be the ones he’s complaining about or not.

Post Geoff, pace Asimov: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

Hey, Mike — Just so you know, if I was ever elected to public office, I’d hire a guy like you as an advisor just so I could get as wide a perspective on an issue as possible before making a decision.
————————

Thanks; but would you ever get anything done then, with all the back–and-forth arguing?

…And I have respect (and even agree, in places) for many of the ideas of old-fashioned conservatives.

Unfortunately, to the modern variety, even Barry Goldwater (not to mention those seig-heilers) was too liberal!

Ummmm, not that I’m trying to hijack the comment thread here…but I noticed that the original post says “It was created by the blogger D. B. Echo, who posted it online on August 15.” While this is true, it should be noted that I created this on August 15, 2010. So it was kicking around for over thirteen months before Paul Krugman featured it on his blog.